tv [untitled] January 15, 2012 11:01am-11:31am PST
it satisfies our conditions. the merchants have a very limited menu. there were no objections except for this specific appellant. we did a evaluate it. we have informed the applicant there is a limited number of days they are allowed to operate, and they were given a 60-day window to inform us, which they did in providing the opportunity to do the market studies specifically. they're always appears to be some confusion, and i will talk to the appellant of this hearing. the notification process is placed on the website for
as well as anything the department has. there is nothing in the permit. is limited. we had a public hearing on this. it was a evaluated and is determined there was little impact to local merchants. it appears the appellant is more concerned about the quality of life as to the cleanliness, which the department will start addressing moving forward. we believe they have processed this appropriately. >> the permit process is the
same as for a food truck now? >> it is the same. >> it is safe to assume they did not consider this to be a proliferation of those types of operations? >> that is correct. we are required to notify businesses within 100 feet, which these mobile businesses would be notified also. >> none of them chose to appeal? >> that is correct. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening, board of commissioners and staff.
vietnamese and business people in the area. our main concern is because they are across the street from us, and they are selling the same things, such as vietnamese sandwiches and spring rolls, we are impacted by the amount of fees we have to pay for rent, and those are the options we have to sell during lunch, and we are only open during lunch until about 4:30 in the afternoon, and those are the only times of business and we have, so i wanted to make a comment, and hopefully the commissioners would take that into consideration that we are in business right now, and we
have been open for about a month already, and i hope you would be able to grant this appeal for a permit, and i am available for further questions. >> did you not received any notice on this? >> the only note as we received -- the only notice we received was the appeal notice, because we did not come into the business in the retail space until november 1 of 2011, which is already passed the time they were granted.
they were also granted with two other promises -- other permits. i do not mind it being two trucks, but being across from that, it makes the competition harder for lower overhead than with us having a higher cost for rent and employees, workers, everything like fathat. it makes it a little bit harder to make ends meet with the business.
wexner you have a question for her? -- >> you have a question for her? >> did you have any professional assistance in negotiating your lease in terms of getting disclosures about what is in the area for your business? >> no. we just thought the business from a previous business but was there. we are actually a fast-food service. the business but was there was also a fast-food service. >> also be enemies, -- vietnamese? >> it was chinese and vietnamese. they were also serving vietnamese noodles, sandwiches
as well, so technically, we almost have the same menu as them, but it has been changed. >> at what point was the appeal filed and the services suspended on the permit? can you tell me? >> the appeal was filed november 14. >> you have not seen any impact of this being across the street at this point? >> we never saw them there yet. we just see the post card with the appeals. that is how come i showed up. >> once an appeal is filed a permit is suspended. >> that is why i wanted to know if her business has not been affected. >> they are not there, so i
would not know. >> you have no evidence of the impact it has? >> not at this point. >> is there any other public comments? seeing none, we can move into rebuttal. the you have anything more to say? you can speak now. three minutes. >> i never know as they have a place there, so that is why we planned it their superior -- planned dit there.
thank you. spherby commissioners, i sense e confusion, and we had better shed some light on this. the applicant applied in approximately march or april of 2011. the department provided notification in april before and now the merchant received any notification. the decision was made. the permit was issued at the end of october of last year after the information and the associated requirements have been satisfied. this permit was appealed. therefore, they cannot operate.
there was a lack of notification from the merchant of provided the statement, and i hope it will clarify what happened. >> is it clear that businesses within 300 foot radius? >> it is. however, at the time of application of a permit process, there were no other like foods in the vicinity. similar to what happened previously, a food truck would be authorized for a specific location that may choose not to operate for a little while. someone may move in like this. they got a permit from of police department, did not operate for a couple months. the merchants of this commercial
space, a police it, opened a copper rioja region t-- the merchant opened this space, leased it. there is nothing as long as they do not change their merchandise. >> we heard testimony from the individual who just commented of the menu from the prior owner was similar to the existing menu, that they sold vietnamese foods as well. >> that may be correct. we would not have knowledge. the expectation is when we provide notification there was serious concern.
there is an issue. >> unless that is brought to you, we do not have knowledge. >> i thought part of the process and look at light food. >> we do our best to look at what is out there, but these are situations where something has been happening with that specific business, that you decide maybe it is not the right location, and maybe for them, it was not important, because they knew they were leaving. >> we understand the chronology and the sequencing actually was very close between those things that happen. this board does not have to only
look at sequencing, and if we did not, i would ask you, knowing there was another facility, would you think there was an issue of like food? >> the department was informed its this merchant was selling similar foods, we would work to relocate to other places or use another location had we known about this. >> thank you. >> are there going to be additional fees if the process takes place? >> there will be our prenotification see -- a renotification fee, but we will
work with the merchant and the applicant your your -- and the applicant. >> given these circumstances, will those thesfees be waved? >> the department itself cannot waive it. we do not have the ability. we will try to find some applicable solution. >> the merchant being this permit holder or the other location? >> the permit holders specifically. >> work with them how? >> we had one other situation where it was a police department permits. we found out after the fact that
it was authorizing a location that is not allowed under current legislation. we wound up working with the merchant in this specific case, and we wind up observing it by providing a posting whether the and a mailing -- rather than a mailing. we did a posting 300 feet informant now the residents and businesses at a smal certain location. >> the condition of approval, and i am curious.
we have been presented this material that was not in our materials. i am recalling that these are not permanent. at what point? but they are required to be renewed every year. if an applicant who is not who eligible, daycare anthey can ree permit. >> should we deny the appeal, and a permit can go forward, and the permit holder can commence
their businesses, but they would be permitted to operate for at least a year unless weekend edition of permits for the duration? they would have to renew, and during that process common you would have to go through the process. >> there are no notification requirements. we evaluate whether there have been notices of violation to this merchant. whether there have been issues of public health, that we determined this was not an appropriate use. the department can revoke and not allow it to renew. >> i did not hear any of
incentive -- any bases. i did not hear you say development might not be affected economically by the exis. >> that would be correct. you have a situation of a location selling specific food. then you have a commercial enterprise. i am going to sell similar food and then turn it around and require the department to revoke it. >> thank you. >> the matter is submitted. >> if i can ask the woman who spoke in public testimony to
come up, thank you for coming back. i am confused as to the chronology. you started operating, or you applied to operate in november of 2011? >> we started to operate december 12 of 2011. we signed police -- the lease on november 1. >> when did the other one ceased to operate? >> my understanding is they were granted a permit on october 28. >> you took over a spot, and
someone was operating there. when did they cease to operate? >> october 31. >> you think they anticipated they were going to cease to operate? did they negotiate a lease before they cease to operate? >> they were subleased, so they do not want to do the business. that is how they came in. >> they said, you want to operate here. >> yes. >> the operation that was here before with not know? there was no disclosure teo -- now is closer to you? >> no.
we have no clue about that until we got a postcard. goo>> thank you. five commissioners comments? >> may i asked a question as a citizen? public comment is closed? >> yes. >> i will start with what bothers me first of all. let's say you already operate of food facilitiey, and when you start to operate there is a similar operation within 300 feet. it would seem unfair that someone could open a facility and put you out of business. i would have trouble with that.
it does not seem this particular permit holder did anything irregular, and it seems to me in every way his permit is valid in terms of the problems raised by the appellant. we know there is no elevator there. we know the sidewalk is wide enough not to have an affect on pedestrian traffic. the fact there is trash, the problem has to be solved now by making sure those people already operates there. the way that is might have nothing to do at all with these facilities.
i am torn as to whether or not to uphold this, because we have new information where someone who was maybe purposely misled. they should have known this operation would be applied for, and this operator was going through great expense to be there, so i would like to hear what their thoughts are. >> i have a question for the permit holder. can you tell me what you knew about the place on the corner? >> no, according to her they would operate entire food -- thai food.
>> she said the enemies. you were not aware there was vietnamese food being served? >> no. >> did you walk around that block? >> we wanted to be fair. >> there was a food operation is a public speaker is operating from? did you go there bowma? i can understand you might have a little anxiety. if there food operation was there, did you go look at the menu in and see what they are selling and make your determination and now that you would not be in conflict with them? >> no. >> you did not? >> we did go around to find if
there was of food conflict. >> when you got to this area of the woman now occupies? >> i am not sure which one. >> she is going to be across from where you are. >> kitty corner. now >> is she kitty corner? >> across the street is wells fargo, and this building. >> if the building across is the 200-block, and you are at one, there cannot be 100. a one and 100 are the same. >> that is the address. >> their location is the middle of the block.
>> when you went to that operation, you could not tell if it was similar to yours? you felt it was not? >> we go around and see if there is anything similar. >> i am not talking about going around. q. now know where this woman who -- >> i do not have any idea of. >> thank you. >> i want to follow up on the comments of vice president garcia. i feel similarly and terms of if the mobile food facility is already in existence, the permit was properly issued. that is how i feel. i do not feel as if any of the
complaints made by the appellant are going to hold any sway with me, but the existence of a properly permited business should not be ousted by another business that comes after the fire. that is my thinking of it. i think is unfortunate timing. i would not go so far as to say there is anyone misleading anybody. >> there is a lot of similar thinking. your before i go there,